|
|
Post by Roderick on Jul 17, 2009 13:56:24 GMT 12
Page 2 of 2 View as a single page 4:00AM Friday Jul 17, 2009
By Adam Bennett
"These transactions ... were very, very clever. They absolutely complied with the law, they were crafted by very intelligent and skilled people, but at some point they became too clever and the court said they crossed the line."
The decision did not ruin the other banks' chances of winning their cases, "but it's influential because judges don't like to disagree with each other".
HOW IT WORKED
The "structured finance" transactions targeted by the IRD used a mechanism originally set up by the Government to make New Zealand a more attractive base for international business deals.
The "conduit" rules said that if an overseas-owned company in NZ invested in another overseas entity, it would pay only 15 per cent withholding tax on the distribution of profits or dividends from the transaction.
The rules were especially advantageous to the banks, as being "thinly capitalised", with debt of up to 97 per cent on their balance sheets, they could write off huge interest costs from raising debt overseas while qualifying for a reduced tax liability on the income generated by the deals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roderick on Jul 17, 2009 14:11:42 GMT 12
Anyone else feel like we are the meat in the sandwich , here , and that we (the nz public) seem to be always behind the 8 ball , and are taken advantage of to horrific levels that we are very rarely made aware of...
...eg...we think the banks make a huge profit , but as it is declared , they will have to pay tax on it like any other business , and so all is well....this shows that is not the case...
Winstone Peters winebox was also smoke and mirrors like this...and we never got to the bottom of that as i recall..??...(and him making a comeback is another debate)
|
|
Roadhog
50 unit Licensed motel
Zambuka Marine Transport Unit
Greased Lightning!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 14,987
|
Post by Roadhog on Jul 17, 2009 18:23:16 GMT 12
The ocker owners will foot the bill.
A few years ago the ANZ pushed fees and rates up by a substantial margin resulting in a noticable loss of buisness, which they are still trying to recover from. Fees like a monthly account fee of $20, atm card replacement fees of $20 and transation fees that were rediculous have all left their mark. When the ANZ reduced their fees, the damage had already been done, with customers having already changed to other banks.
I cant see anyone in their right mind sticking with the BNZ if they try passing this debt on to their clients! That would simply repeat the mistake ANZ made in the mid 90's.
As for account closing fees, the banks can shove them where the sun dont shine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roderick on Sept 4, 2009 11:38:27 GMT 12
|
|
